Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Selecting viewers - rather simple these days?

Expand Messages
  • dalileis
    Been thinking of recommending following to the visitors of our site. ... If on PC ------- Use DevalVR. Tiniest of downloads. Easy, fast, semi-automatic
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Been thinking of recommending following to the visitors of our site.

      ...

      If on PC -------> Use DevalVR.

      Tiniest of downloads. Easy, fast, semi-automatic install. Gotta love
      the alert interface. Instant download progress bar and last, never the
      least: truly astounding quality (as good, if not BETTER, than the
      Quicktime itself).

      ...

      If on Mac -------> Use Quicktime.

      No need for the 21 MB download, "obscene" as it is, even as a
      standalone. Because Quicktime comes pre-installed on most Macintosh
      machines, correct? Or is this not entirely true?

      ...

      If on any other OS with 56k modem, ISDN and similar connection to the
      Internet -------> Use Java, Shockwave or Flash.

      Simply because there is no DevalVR option available today and the
      Quicktime is just too darn big to download, visitors leaving site
      before the download is complete and Apple, sadly, not making things
      very user-friendly either, at the same time.

      ...

      If on any other OS, but with DSL, similar or faster connection to the
      Internet -------> Use Quicktime.

      DOWNLOAD SIZE aside... It's still the ultimate in quality + all the
      accumulated possibilities of easily building in interactive contents,
      through Pano2QTVR, for example, all readily available. Hotspots,
      Flash, audio, all of it.

      ...

      So... good or bad idea, this one? The recommending part...

      If you'd like, could you show me the flaws of such a reasoning? =)

      Thanks!

      Kind regards,

      Dali
    • dalileis
      EDIT: Come to think of it, don t believe Quicktime is really available on any other OS , even if the visitor has broader connection to the Internet. In that
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        EDIT:

        Come to think of it, don't believe Quicktime is really available on
        "any other OS", even if the visitor has broader connection to the
        Internet. In that case I'd recommend users to go for Immervision Java,
        if the fullscreen quality is of the utmost concern. If not, Shockwave
        or Flash, then.
      • fierodeval
        Hi Dali, ... Maybe you can use QuickTime in Windows if it s already installed. This way only 30% of users must install DevalVR. ... I read in QT faq at
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Dali,

          > If on PC -------> Use DevalVR.

          Maybe you can use QuickTime in Windows if it's already installed. This
          way only 30% of users must install DevalVR.


          > If on any other OS, but with DSL, similar or faster connection
          > to the Internet -------> Use Quicktime.

          I read in QT faq at http://www.apple.com/quicktime/player/faq.html :

          Which platforms are supported by QuickTime 7?
          QuickTime is a truly cross-platform technology. It supports Mac OS X
          Tiger and Panther, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

          So QT is only available for Windows and MacOS. Maybe the best solution
          for other OS is to install Flash 8 (or 9 now) and use Thomas
          Rauscher's cubic Flash panoramas. Flash has a small download (only 2
          MB) and it isn't too slow.

          My 2 cents :)

          best regards
          fiero
        • Pablo d'Angelo
          ... I would love to do this, but Flash 8 and 9 are only available for Windows and OSX. Except java based plugins, there are no panoramic viewer plugins
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            fierodeval wrote:
            > Hi Dali,
            >
            > Which platforms are supported by QuickTime 7?
            > QuickTime is a truly cross-platform technology. It supports Mac OS X
            > Tiger and Panther, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
            >
            > So QT is only available for Windows and MacOS. Maybe the best solution
            > for other OS is to install Flash 8 (or 9 now) and use Thomas
            > Rauscher's cubic Flash panoramas. Flash has a small download (only 2
            > MB) and it isn't too slow.

            I would love to do this, but Flash 8 and 9 are only available for Windows
            and OSX. Except java based plugins, there are no panoramic viewer plugins
            available for Linux/Unix right now.

            Once the freepv viewer (currently under development) will have proper
            support for QTVR files (we're working on it), I can finally watch those nice
            panoramas posted here under Linux easily :-)

            ciao
            Pablo
          • fierodeval
            ooops! Yes, you are right, for Linux only Flash 7 is available http://www.adobe.com/es/shockwave/download/alternates/ . regards fiero ... Windows ... plugins
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ooops! Yes, you are right, for Linux only Flash 7 is available
              http://www.adobe.com/es/shockwave/download/alternates/ .

              regards
              fiero


              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Pablo d'Angelo <pablo.dangelo@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > fierodeval wrote:
              > > Hi Dali,
              > >
              > > Which platforms are supported by QuickTime 7?
              > > QuickTime is a truly cross-platform technology. It supports Mac OS X
              > > Tiger and Panther, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
              > >
              > > So QT is only available for Windows and MacOS. Maybe the best solution
              > > for other OS is to install Flash 8 (or 9 now) and use Thomas
              > > Rauscher's cubic Flash panoramas. Flash has a small download (only 2
              > > MB) and it isn't too slow.
              >
              > I would love to do this, but Flash 8 and 9 are only available for
              Windows
              > and OSX. Except java based plugins, there are no panoramic viewer
              plugins
              > available for Linux/Unix right now.
              >
              > Once the freepv viewer (currently under development) will have proper
              > support for QTVR files (we're working on it), I can finally watch
              those nice
              > panoramas posted here under Linux easily :-)
              >
              > ciao
              > Pablo
              >
            • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
              ... As much as I like the size and features of DevalVR, I wouldn t use it for fullscreens. It runs terrible on my pc at least. I have a fast dual core
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                > If on PC -------> Use DevalVR.

                As much as I like the size and features of DevalVR, I wouldn't use it for
                fullscreens. It runs terrible on my pc at least. I have a fast dual core
                processor and a very fast video board, but that doen't seem to help. I
                think the 1920x1200 resolution kills its performance.

                SPi-V shines, though. Smooth, feature rich and very good quality. But on
                my previous pc I had a geforce2 video board and that was like viewin a
                slideshow. A slow slideshow to be exact. Afaik you need quite some video
                memory to view an SPi-V panorama or else you won't like what you see.

                > If on Mac -------> Use Quicktime.

                Uhm, sounds reasonable, yes.

                > If on any other OS with 56k modem, ISDN and similar connection to the
                > Internet -------> Use Java, Shockwave or Flash.

                Flash needs a powerful pc, unless you make it a real small pano.

                > If on any other OS, but with DSL, similar or faster connection to the
                > Internet -------> Use Quicktime.
                >
                > DOWNLOAD SIZE aside... It's still the ultimate in quality + all the
                > accumulated possibilities of easily building in interactive contents,
                > through Pano2QTVR, for example, all readily available. Hotspots,
                > Flash, audio, all of it.

                It's not quite the ultimate in quality, but quicktime seems to run o.k. on
                older pc's and on old video boards. That does make it a good default.

                Serge.
              • dalileis
                ... Interesting point, Serge. Haven t tried to run Deval on screens that use more then 1280 x 1024 so this is clearly a fact to take into consideration in the
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I think the 1920x1200 resolution kills its performance.

                  Interesting point, Serge. Haven't tried to run Deval on screens that
                  use more then 1280 x 1024 so this is clearly a fact to take into
                  consideration in the near future.

                  > SPi-V shines, though. Smooth, feature rich and very good quality.
                  But on > my previous pc I had a geforce2 video board and that was like
                  viewin a > slideshow. A slow slideshow to be exact. Afaik you need
                  quite some video > memory to view an SPi-V panorama or else you won't
                  like what you see.

                  Hmm. To my eyes SPi-V just kills the sharpness and detail somehow.
                  It's smooth alright, but it feels TOO smooth sometimes, if you know
                  what I mean?

                  >It's not quite the ultimate in quality, but quicktime seems to run
                  o.k. on older pc's and on old video boards.

                  Isn't Quicktime the best when it comes to fullscreen QTVR quality?
                  Together with DevalVR (when without the above screen resolution
                  issues)? Which viewer is there that is better? You don't mean that the
                  SPi-V beats Quicktime when it comes to quality, of course. ?

                  Regards,

                  Dali
                • Serge Maandag (yahoo)
                  ... Yes, but I don t see it. I just compared two equally zoomed examples next to each other, SPi-V and QT. They seem awfully alike. But if I start panning, I
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 28, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Hmm. To my eyes SPi-V just kills the sharpness and detail somehow.
                    > It's smooth alright, but it feels TOO smooth sometimes, if you know
                    > what I mean?

                    Yes, but I don't see it. I just compared two equally zoomed examples next
                    to each other, SPi-V and QT. They seem awfully alike.

                    But if I start panning, I clearly see the difference. While QT jumps in
                    steps, SPi-V eases itself to the side. And with les shimmering and moire.

                    > You don't mean that the SPi-V beats Quicktime when it comes to quality,
                    > of course. ?

                    Ehm, I did. And I seem to recall a discussion on the list lately on QT
                    quality versus ptviewer quality. They both were equal in (static) quality
                    or ptviewer was even a tiny bit better. See also:
                    http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/48349

                    That makes QT at least third in line :)

                    Serge.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.